The Measurement of Contraction

The theory of relativity is presented as one that cannot be understood
by most people. This aura of complexity and difficulty is maintained
by using ambiguity and vagueness in describing and defining the theory
and defending it with even more ambiguity and vagueness against logic.
But what is it really? Stripped of all esoteric language it simply
means that physical objects (we may call them frames) that are capable
of motion (cars, trains, planes, the earth, planets, stars) will
shrink along the axis parallel to the motion and have their clocks
slow down. The effects are in proportion to the velocity of the object
and are called length contraction and time dilation. They can be
calculated using the transformation formulas that are the substance of
the Lorentz contraction hypothesis. But as the tools of measurement
(rulers, clocks) are also adjusted relative to the speed, any change
in metres and clock rates will not be noticed by anyone measuring
length or time in his environment (the local frame). Regardless of the
velocity of the local frame, things measured within the local frame by
local frame occupants always have the same size and the local frame
time always flows at the same rate.

However, the supporters of the relativity theories (both SR and LET)
have introduced the concepts of observed frame and observer frame. If
an observed frame and an observer frame travel at different speeds, it
is claimed that any contraction and dilation affecting the observed
object can be measured by an observer in the observer frame. A
procedure of measurement which will lead to 'the visibility of
contraction' is described in a textbook (Resnick, Introduction to
Special Relativity, 1968) as:

"An observer is an INFINITE set of recording clocks distributed
throughout space, AT REST and synchronized with respect to one
another. The space time co-ordinates of an event (x,y,z,t) are
recorded by the clock at the location (x,y,z) of the event at the time
(t) it occurs. Measurements thus recorded throughout space time (we
might call them local measurements) are then available to be PICKED UP
and ANALYSED by an EXPERIMENTER who collects the measurements made in
this way. Each inertial frame is IMAGINED to have such a set of
recording clocks, or such an observer. The relations between the space-
time co-ordinates of a physical event measured by one OBSERVER (S) and
the space-time co-ordinates of the same physical event measured by
another OBSERVER (S') are the equations of transformation".

Resnick uses the terms INFINITE, AT REST, PICKED UP, ANALYSED,
EXPERIMENTER, OBSERVER (S) and OBSERVER (S'). While the phraseology
may not prevent calculating contraction according to the Lorentz
formulas with a pencil on a piece of paper, it can surely never be
done in the field. It is a smokescreen to support the illusion that
contraction is a physical reality.

But let us ask questions about such a measurement. Event 1 is the
recording of location A of one end of a rod in space at time t by
observers S and S'. Event 2 is the recording of location B of the
other end of the rod also at time t by the same observers. The
experimenter picks up and analyses the four space time co-ordinates
made by the two observers. Will the answer be the contracted length of
the rod? How will the movement of the two observers relative to the
rod disclose the contracted length of the rod and not a distorted view
of it? How are optical, communicative and angular aspects included in
the measurement? What single fixed co-ordinate system is common to
both observers or is it only relative to observer S or observer S'?
How will the experimenter establish that the times t of the two
observers are simultaneous given that SR imposes a whole set of ifs
and buts on simultaneity? How will any difference in the speed the
observed object, S and S' be taken into account?

It all can be done on paper making assumptions but not as a real test.
The more ardent supporters of the contraction hypothesis assert that
proof is not required. Their argument is that to 'make predictions' is
sufficient or they will do the calculations manually and if these are
rejected or ignored by anyone, they accuse him of being incapable of
the maths and he should study the subject to understand the theory.
With understanding they mean accepting it without reservation. It is
the approach of all monotheistic religions which ostracise all non-
believers, excommunicate them, vilify them, and ultimately stone or
burn them. In this NG it is automatically practised against any member
who dares to reject SR or even question it.

Peter Riedt